[ChristianRock]

Now people who want f/2.8 zooms are well-to-do, with more money than sense, and most likely poor photographers shooting in auto with the hood reversed...what.a gross generalization, as if there is no redeeming reasons for a photographer to actually own such a lens.

I looked into sales data of our company, the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 varieties outsell the f/4 varieties 3:1.
Among the f/2.8 lenses I've personally sold, most were to pro or serious-amateur photographers, people who know what they are doing and know their requirements in a lens. This idea floating around that a fast zoom is impractical like a muscle car is baseless. True, there are a few people who buy such lenses just for social status, but they are a minority - they aren't "keeping Canikon in business".

Some people choose fast zooms, some choose compact prime lineups, some people don't mind cranking the ISO with slow lenses. As long as they are happy with the results and know how to get the most of of their gear, none of them should be disparaged as if their choice makes them a poor photographer.

I'm sorry but I think you are misrepresenting what I said. I never said everyone that buys 2.8 zooms is a poor photographer - much less that buying one makes you one. If I was shooting parties and weddings I'd certainly have to get one. What I said is, I do know people like that, and they invest more money into new gear, than the good photogs I know.

It doesn't help the conversation when you make a strawman out of someone else's post.

[Mock]

I'm sorry but I think you are misrepresenting what I said. I never said everyone that buys 2.8 zooms is a poor photographer - much less that buying one makes you one. If I was shooting parties and weddings I'd certainly have to get one. What I said is, I do know people like that, and they invest more money into new gear, than the good photogs I know.

It doesn't help the conversation when you make a strawman out of someone else's post.

You stated that Ricoh needs to cater to the "well-to-do enthusiast" to increase market share, that they are investing more money than us and keeping Canikon in business. You then go on to state that this user on APS-C would buy the 18-35 and it would make them happy, then you state that this user doesn't want APS-C anyways. FInally, the good photographers are using gear they bought 5+ years ago, don't upgrade, and use APS-C.
If you meant to include legitimate f/2.8 user groups in that post, you didn't do a very good job of it, otherwise I would not respond as I did.

Based on evidence, I'm stating that your "well-to-do enthusiast" user will not do much to increase market share, but targeting the legitimate users of such lenses will.

[ChristianRock]

Sorry, that's called a false dichotomy. Just because I made a statement about "well to do enthusiasts", doesn't mean I included everyone that has a 2.8 zoom.

Your logic:
- Told that rich amateurs buy 2.8 zooms
- I have 2.8 zooms
- Therefore I was called a rich amateur

And yes there are a lot of people out there with nice equipment that don't know what they're doing. Note though, that another thing I never said, was that Ricoh/Pentax should NOT target people who know what they're doing. Why not target everyone?

I don't know what I'm doing but I have cheap equipment

[Mock]

Sorry, that's called a false dichotomy. Just because I made a statement about "well to do enthusiasts", doesn't mean I included everyone that has a 2.8 zoom.

Your logic:
- Told that rich amateurs buy 2.8 zooms
- I have 2.8 zooms
- Therefore I was called a rich amateur

And yes there are a lot of people out there with nice equipment that don't know what they're doing.

I don't know what I'm doing but I have cheap equipment

I'm not taking anything you say personally. I'm not well-to-do at all, If this lens was priced along OEM lines ($1500+), I would not even be considering it.
This is about your "well-to-do enthusiast who has more money than sense" group who keep supposedly keeps Canikon in business. Compared to people who actually need these lenses, I believe they are a minority. Take it or leave it.

[VoiceOfReason]

I wish I were a rich amateur! Then I would be rich, and that would be awesome. As for now I think I have more enthusiasm than skill. I need to work on that.

[Kozlok]

I wish I were a rich amateur! Then I would be rich, and that would be awesome. As for now I think I have more enthusiasm than skill. I need to work on that.

If you have a digital camera, 3 meals a day and don't live in a cardboard box, there are some in this wold who would call you rich.

[Aristophanes]

rich amateurs buy 2.8 zooms

Eventually.

Problem is that not everyone starts out as an enthusiast photographer at the mid-to high-end.

To make the market you need gatekeeper products (kit lens) plus step up products (f/4 L glass) and then you create your high-margin market (FA 31 Ltd).

Canikon keeps in business because it reaches down as well as up. The eternal Pentax problem (veering into FF here...so beware) is that going up from the low and mid-range requires a very comprehensive array of product, from telephoto zooms at f/2.8 to comprehensive flash systems, and so on for larger sensors like FF. Even the esoteric like TS lenses. Pentax doesn't even have tethering.

Pentax has been very good at reaching down and forming and preserving brand loyalty. It creates its own "enthusiasts" with just enough high-end product (DA*300, FA Ltd's, DA 15 and 70, K-3, 100 WR Macro, WR flashes) that we are still here and talking. but going to the next level is difficult. Products like the Sigma 18-35 cannot be done for Pentax without us being a parasite off the larger Canikon market, especially since k-mount still uses a mechanical aperture.

[dadipentak]

I just got another message from B&H informing me that they are still unable to fulfill my order from last July. That prompted me to check when this thread started. I'm thinking we should do something special if the lens is still unavailable on 6/14/14.

[mecrox]

Pentax has been very good at reaching down and forming and preserving brand loyalty. It creates its own "enthusiasts" with just enough high-end product (DA*300, FA Ltd's, DA 15 and 70, K-3, 100 WR Macro, WR flashes) that we are still here and talking. but going to the next level is difficult. Products like the Sigma 18-35 cannot be done for Pentax without us being a parasite off the larger Canikon market, especially since k-mount still uses a mechanical aperture.

The next level has already become where we are?? Two or three years ago there were no Sigma Art lenses, no Fuji XT-I and suite of fast lenses, fewer Nikon G series lenses, no 6D or D610 and Samyang was still on Ruff Street. And the M43 crowd had yet to pile in quite so strongly on fast, high-end primes. So simply in order to stay where they are, I'd have thought that Pentax need to go to the next level which isn't FF but a stronger offering on APS-C - assuming they continue to base their bread-and-butter business on APS-C DSLRs. of course. FF is becoming not one but two levels up in terms of lenses, at least. Just speculation partly based on the notion that with most folks now having the body they want, the roving eye of Acquisition Addiction has shifted more to lenses and accessories. And profits too for manufacturers: if camera sales are slowing, maybe they can persuade us that without some pricey f1.4s in the bag we're no-hopers.

[Aristophanes]

The next level has already become where we are?? Two or three years ago there were no Sigma Art lenses, no Fuji XT-I and suite of fast lenses, fewer Nikon G series lenses, no 6D or D610 and Samyang was still on Ruff Street. And the M43 crowd had yet to pile in quite so strongly on fast, high-end primes. So simply in order to stay where they are, I'd have thought that Pentax need to go to the next level which isn't FF but a stronger offering on APS-C - assuming they continue to base their bread-and-butter business on APS-C DSLRs. of course. FF is becoming not one but two levels up in terms of lenses, at least. Just speculation partly based on the notion that with most folks now having the body they want, the roving eye of Acquisition Addiction has shifted more to lenses and accessories. And profits too for manufacturers: if camera sales are slowing, maybe they can persuade us that without some pricey f1.4s in the bag we're no-hopers.

The market is maturing rapidly. The huge growth in performance cameras in the last 8 years opened the way for Sigma (and others) to invest in products like the 18-35.

The problem is, a 1kg lens cannot make or sustain a market for a single brand. Its drawbacks (weight and only 1.9x FL) are just as much of drag as the optics are a draw. At $800 it is close to what an upgrade from a K-3 to a D610 body will cost, once the K-3 settles down in MSRP. That's not a coincidence.

If Pentax tried to make this lens alone for their APS-C market, it would cost $1,400 (guesswork) MSRP, driving business towards FF, thereby killing the bread or the butter of APS-C.

All manufacturers right now are competing for a stagnant market that has largely gone higher-end as the newcomer realm has largely been tapped. It's not dead, but it's stagnant growth. In some ways all the manufacturers are trying to let the other guy be the low-margin supplier while they steal the cream. Fuji is unabashed at this. to that extent they are over-pricing certain items (Nikon 1 series) and highly competitive pricing existing products (Canon SL1). This is all an attempt to claw as much revenue as possible.

[northcoastgreg]

The reality is that the F/2.8 zooms in Nikon are better than the slower lenses, by and large, even when stopped down.

If that is true, it makes one wonder what Nikon has against landscape photographers, particularly the knees and backs of such photographers. There's absolutely no reason why a slower zoom lens can't be just as good, particularly when stopped down, than a faster zoom lens. And for landscape photography, the slower zoom lens has the built-in advantage of requiring less glass, which tends to improve flare control.

I supsect Nikon intentionally makes sure their slower zooms are inferior to the faster stuff as a way of encouraging photographers to buy more expensive, higher margin glass.

This idea floating around that a fast zoom is impractical like a muscle car is baseless.

Fast zooms are not so much impractical; they just aren't the best fit for all types of photography. If landscape photographers are buying faster zooms because the faster zooms really are better, even when stopped down, than the slower stuff, than camera and lens companies aren't producing products tailor made for landscape photography. While I find quite a few landscape photographers shooting f2.8 zooms at iconic places in the western United States, what I don't find is many photographers shooting such glass in the back country, a mile or more from the parking lot. Many of the fast zoom crowd seems to have bought into Edward Weston's adage that anything more than 500 yards from the car just isn't photogenic.

[ElJamoquio]

At $800 it is close to what an upgrade from a K-3 to a D610 body will cost, once the K-3 settles down in MSRP. That's not a coincidence.

Hmm... when do you expect the current difference in street price ($500) to grow to $800? I would think it would require the K-3 being discontinued. The K-3 is much newer than the D600/610 (i consider them the same) but the APS-C upgrade cycle is a bit quicker... so in my mind it seems unlikely to happen in the near term. I don't see the K-3 going down another $300 without the D610 going down $100 or so...


Maybe the K-3 would have to cost maybe $800 or so while the D610 costs $1600?

---------- Post added 04-04-14 at 10:31 AM ----------

If that is true, it makes one wonder what Nikon has against landscape photographers, particularly the knees and backs of such photographers. There's absolutely no reason why a slower zoom lens can't be just as good, particularly when stopped down, than a faster zoom lens. And for landscape photography, the slower zoom lens has the built-in advantage of requiring less glass, which tends to improve flare control.

I'm with you, more-or-less. There are technical limits to using 'all' of the lens compared to limiting some of the 'edge effects'. But I get what you're saying and agree. I also agree that the flare control improves.

I supsect Nikon intentionally makes sure their slower zooms are inferior to the faster stuff as a way of encouraging photographers to buy more expensive, higher margin glass.

Maybe, but it's true across the board. It's not like the 16-50mm is some magic beast, either, and Pentax doesn't have anything faster!

Many of the fast zoom crowd seems to have bought into Edward Weston's adage that anything more than 500 yards from the car just isn't photogenic.

I'll have to plagiarize that.

[MMVIII]

I see some enthusiasm for this lens, and while I also got this first - wow! fast lens, sharp from edge to edge, sounds like a no brainer - musthavereflex, on a second thought - wow! heavy! some problems with flare resistance - the questio arose where this combination actually might really be crucial?

Can someone enlighten me further - what are the photographic situations you consider to be the ones that profit significantly from such a lens?

When I do photograph something with a slight wide angle that needs sharpness from edge to edge then I don't have a choice but close the aperture to at least 5.6
When I do photography in dim light it will be difficult to really nail the focus in which case shallow DOF is a real drawback.
When I want to isolate something in most cases I am not concerned of corner sharpness decrease, on the contrary.

This is an honest question, I'm just evaluating options for a possible future zoom-kit in combination with DA15 and DA70 and the DA20-40 seem to be more attractive for my style of shooting and travelling. Just the price would have to come down, this is a bonus for the Sigma at the moment.

[VoiceOfReason]

If you have a digital camera, 3 meals a day and don't live in a cardboard box, there are some in this wold who would call you rich.

I'm glad I'm not those people. Of course I've been homeless for a period of time, so I have a perspective, but I can tell you I'm not rich by any means. I know some rich people.

[Aristophanes]

Hmm... when do you expect the current difference in street price ($500) to grow to $800?

The price difference at B&H is US$600 right now. $1296.95 vs. 1896.95.

Adorama the same.

K-3 announced Oct. 2013.
D600 announced Sept. 2012 with the 610 upgrade a year later, about the same time as the K-3.

So the D6xx has had a full year+ on the market to get blooded and recalled. The K-3 is only just now starting to bend the price curve down. They might do a Mk.II on the K-3 to keep the curve up, like the 610 has done for Nikon (and with the Pentax K-5xx prior).

The cost curve in the long run doesn't favour APS-C high-end. That's why I say the Sigma is selling into a matured market.